"Can the defendant's defender ask questions of the defendant?" The judge said.

"Defendant Liu Meng, have you ever seen this kind of wire connecting households before?" Fang Yi asked.

"I've seen it, there are many of these threads in our village, I see them often, and I'm used to it." Liu Meng thought for a while.

Fang Yi asked this to tell the judge that this kind of household line at the place where the crime occurred is very common in rural areas, and it is very safe under normal circumstances, and there will be no electrocution death at all, and people in the village are accustomed to it, so from the perspective of ordinary people's cognition, the household line is safe. Even if the ultra-high modified car hits the household line, there will be no risk of electric shock under normal circumstances.

……

"The facts of this case have been investigated, the court investigation has been completed, and the court arguments are now begining. Court debates revolve around disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and how the law should be applied based on the facts.

The prosecutor will speak first. The judge said.

"Judge: The prosecutor believes that the defendant Liu Meng modified the vehicle in violation of regulations, causing the height of the vehicle to exceed the height stipulated by traffic management regulations, and that he should have foreseen that certain harmful results might occur during the driving process, and should have taken necessary preventive measures.

However, the defendant neglected to observe the surrounding environment when he parked the car on the date of the incident, and did not foresee the harmful results that could have been foreseen, and he was subjectively negligent, objectively causing the serious consequences of the victim's death, and should bear criminal responsibility, so we believe that the defendant Liu Meng committed the crime of negligence causing death. It is recommended that he be sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Complete. The male prosecutor spoke.

……

"Defendant Liu Meng's defender expressed his defense opinions." The judge said.

"Judge: The defender believes that although the defendant Liu Meng caused the consequences of the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu, he was neither intentional nor negligent, there is no causal relationship in criminal law between the death of the victim and the defendant's modification of the vehicle and violation of traffic management regulations, and the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu was an accident, and the defendant Liu Meng should not bear criminal responsibility for the consequences. The specific reasons are as follows:

1. Defendant Liu Meng was not subjectively negligent in the consequences of the victim's electrocution death

Article 15 of the Criminal Law stipulates that a person who should foresee that his or her actions may have a result harmful to society, and if he fails to foresee it because of negligence, or has foreseen it and is credulous enough to believe that such a result can be avoided, it is a crime of negligence. Criminal negligence includes: negligent negligence and overconfident negligence.

(1) Defendant Liu Meng was not negligent or negligent.

Negligent negligence refers to the state of mind in which the actor should have foreseen that his or her conduct might have a result that would be harmful to society, but did not foresee it due to negligence. There are three elements of this type of negligence:

1. The perpetrator shall foresee that his or her conduct may have consequences that are harmful to society.

2. The perpetrator did not foresee that his or her conduct might result in a harm to society.

3. The perpetrator's lack of awareness of the possible harmful consequences and failure to foresee them are caused by his own negligence.

In this case, although the defendant Liu Meng welded a canopy on the trunk of the vehicle without permission, causing the height of the agricultural vehicle to exceed the standard height, the defendant did not foresee that the lighting wires connected between households at the location of the crime did not meet the requirements for safe electricity height, and were partially exposed.

ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE HEIGHT OF THE FIRE LINE BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS AT THE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME OCCURRED WAS ONLY 220 CM (THE LEGAL MINIMUM HEIGHT SHOULD BE 250 CM), AND EVEN IF THE PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL OF THE POWER COMPANY DID NOT MEASURE IT, THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FORESEE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE FIRE LINE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

As an ordinary person, when Liu Meng parked the tricycle at the place of the crime, he had no obligation or possibility to foresee that the household line at the place of the crime did not meet the requirements of the distance between the safe electricity and the ground, let alone foresee that the outer skin of the wire was damaged and the wire core was exposed.

In addition, according to the experience of ordinary people, parking under the normal low-voltage lighting line will not occur at all The accident of the body is electrified.

Defendant Liu Meng did not stop on a highway with frequent passing vehicles in violation of regulations and let the victim get out of the car, but turned into the vicinity of a villager's house that he believed was relatively safe and let the victim get out of the car, and he had fulfilled the necessary safety precautions for the personal safety of the passengers on the bus, and there was no negligence.

(2) The defendant is not negligent in overconfidence

Overconfident negligence refers to the subjective state of mind in which the perpetrator has foreseen that his or her actions may have consequences that are harmful to society, but credulity can avoid them.

In this case, the defendant Liu Meng had no obligation and could not have foreseen that he would stop at the place where the crime occurred, and that the canopy of the carriage would happen to encounter bare wires that did not meet the requirements for the height of the safe electricity use to the ground and the insulation measures were ineffective. Therefore, there can be no problem of "credulity can be avoided", and therefore, the defendant does not have the fault of being overconfident.

2. There is no criminal law causal relationship between defendant Liu Meng's unauthorized modification of agricultural vehicles and the consequences of the victim Liu Liangzhu's electrocution.

The causal relationship in criminal law refers to the direct and inevitable relationship between the perpetrator's harmful conduct and the harmful consequences.

Only when the perpetrator's harmful act plays a direct and decisive role in the occurrence of the harmful result can there be a causal relationship between the harmful act and the harmful result.

In this case, although the defendant Liu Meng modified the vehicle without permission, the vehicle highly violated the provisions of traffic management regulations.

However, the defendant's act itself did not directly cause the consequence of Liu Liangzhu's death, nor was it the direct cause of Liu Liangzhu's electrocution death.

According to the evidence on record, Liu Liangzhu died of electrocution, and the direct cause of the electric shock was that the height of the lighting line at the location of the crime did not meet the distance between the household line and the ground for safe electricity use, and the insulation of the wire was damaged, resulting in the discharge of the exposed wire.

The metal pole of the awning of the defendant Liu Meng's agricultural vehicle happened to touch the exposed part of the wire that did not meet the safety height and became electrified, resulting in the accident in which Liu Liangzhu was electrocuted.

Therefore, there is no necessary direct internal connection between defendant Liu Meng's illegal modification of the vehicle and the consequences of the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu, so there is no criminal law causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu.

To sum up, although defendant Liu Meng's act of illegally modifying a vehicle with excessive regulations is related to the result of the victim Liu Liangzhu's electrocution, there is no criminal law causal relationship between his conduct and the consequences of the victim Liu Liangzhu's death, and there is no subjective negligence.

Liu Liangzhu's electrocution was caused by unforeseeable causes of the defendant Liu Meng, and was an accident, so the defendant Liu Meng did not constitute a crime. Complete. After Fang Yi finished his defense opinion, he looked at the judge.

……